W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2014

Re: [manifest] V1 ready for wider review

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:21:44 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+c2ei9uJsDuP3bDfE4NqaN0H6sAouHZp0xR1G0tdHKv9A9whA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Marcos Caceres <marcos@marcosc.com>
Cc: WG Webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Kenneth Rohde Christiansen <kenneth.r.christiansen@intel.com>, "Kostiainen, Anssi" <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Marcos Caceres <marcos@marcosc.com> wrote:
> The editors of the [manifest] spec have now closed all substantive issues for  "v1".
>
> The spec defines the following:
>
> * A link relationship for manifests (so they can be used with <link rel="manifest">).
>
> * A standard file name for a manifest resource ("/.well-known/manifest.json"). Works the same as "/favicon.ico" for when <link rel=manifest> is missing.
>
> * The ability to point to a "start-url".
>
> * Basic screen orientation hinting for when launching a web app.
>
> * Launch the app in different display modes: fullscreen, minimal-ui, open in browser, etc.
>
> * A way of for scripts to check if the application was launched from a bookmark (i.e., similar to Safari's navigator.standalone).
>
> * requestBookmark(), which is a way for a top-level document to request it be bookmarked by the user. To not piss-off users, requires explicit user action to actually work. Expect <button>install my app</button> everywhere on the Web now :)
>
> If you are wondering where some missing feature is, it's probably slated for [v2]. The reason v1 is so small is that it's all we could get agreement on amongst implementers (it's a small set, but it's a good set to kick things off and get us moving... and it's a small spec, so easy to quickly read over).
>
> We would appreciate your feedback on this set of features - please file [bugs] on GitHub. We know it doesn't fully realize *the dream* of installable web apps - but it gets us a few steps closer.
>
> If we don't get any significant objections, we will request to transition to LC in a week or so.

I still think that leaving out name and icons from a manifest about
bookmarks is a big mistake. I just made my case here

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2014Feb/0039.html

Basically I think we need to make the manifest more self sufficient. I
think that we're getting Ruby's postulate the wrong way around by
making the file that describes the bookmark not contain all the data
about the bookmark. Instead the two most important pieces about the
bookmark, name and icons, will live in a completely separate HTML
file, often with no way to find yourself from the manifest to that
separate HTML file.

/ Jonas
Received on Thursday, 13 February 2014 01:22:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:14:21 UTC